From Doug Henwood interview with Tariq Ali
(http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#061102):
Tariq Ali: So the reforms which he has pushed
through of using the oil money to create
You
know people in the states sometimes get shocked
when I say this but look he is very radical in
attacking imperialism and all that but the
internal reforms which are taking place in
Venezuela today are a combination of Roosevelt's
New Deal and social democratic reforms which were
pushed through in every European country after
the Second World War. [Presumably, Ali is referring to Western Europe.]
Doug Henwood: So this is what he means by 21st century socialism?
Tariq Ali: Yeah, that's what he means. It is left
social democratic reforms. And he has said that
to me a number of times that we are not living in
an epoch of proletarian revolution. It is just
crazy to think you can just jump over everything and do that.
===
PEN-L thread beginning on 11/3:
Doug Henwood: I interviewed Tariq Ali the other
week for my radio show, and finally got to
broadcast it last night; it'll be up on my web
archive today. Tariq speaks with Chavez fairly
often, and says that Chavez regularly says that
we are not living in a revolutionary epoch, and
all we can accomplish now is a left social
democratic set of reforms. "We cannot leap"
beyond history, he says - and Castro reportedly
agrees. This is what Chavez means when he talks about 21st century socialism.
Michael Lebowitz reply: Bunk.
Doug Henwood: Could you elaborate? Tariq says he got this directly from Chavez.
Michael Lebowitz: You could start by looking at
'The Revolution of Radical Needs: Behind the
Bolivarian Choice of a Socialist Path', the
concluding chapter of my 'Build it Now: Socialism
for the 21st Century'. Suffice it to say that
Tariq wrote about the basic New Dealism of Chavez
way back (Venezuela being a wonderful Rorschach
test in which the casual visitor gets to see what
he wants), and it is certainly possible that
Chavez has said something like that in a
conversation with Tariq (he's a very agreeable
guy). But you need to know a bit more before you
say, 'This is what Chavez means when he talks
about 21st Century socialism.' Of course, for
foreign consumption (especially before an
election), spreading the word that we're all just
chickens here, boss, can't hurt much.
===
Perry Anderson: What kind of stance should NLR
adopt in this new situation? Its general
approach, I believe, should be an uncompromising
realism. Uncompromising in both senses: refusing
any accommodation with the ruling system, and
rejecting every piety and euphemism that would
understate its power. No sterile maximalism
follows. The journal should always be in sympathy
with strivings for a better life, no matter how
modest their scope. But it can support any local
movements or limited reforms, without pretending
that they alter the nature of the system. What it
cannot-or should not-do is either lend credence
to illusions that the system is moving in a
steadily progressive direction, or sustain
conformist myths that it urgently needs to be
shielded from reactionary forces: attitudes on
display, to take two recent examples, in the
rallying to Princess and President by the
bien-pensant left, as if the British monarchy
needed to be more popular or the American
Presidency more protected. Hysteria of this kind should be sharply attacked.
Full: http://www.newleftreview.net/A2092